• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Village Surgery

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

The Village Surgery, 157 High Street, New Malden, Surrey, KT3 4BH (020) 8942 0094

Provided and run by:
Village Surgery

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile
Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Village Surgery. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

25 February 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection at The Village Surgery on 25 February 2022. Clinical records reviews were carried out remotely during the same day. Overall, the practice is rated as Inadequate.

Safe - Inadequate

Effective - Inadequate

Caring - Inadequate

Responsive - Requires Improvement

Well-led - Inadequate

Following our previous inspection on 8 and 9 September 2021, the practice was rated Inadequate overall and for all key questions but caring and responsive. The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Village Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we carried out this inspection
This inspection was a comprehensive inspection to follow-up on concerns identified during our inspection on 8 and 9 September 2021. At that inspection we rated the practice as inadequate overall and served the provider with a Notice of Decision with conditions placed on the registration. We followed up on the areas below which were identified at the last inspection:

  • The practice was not monitoring all patients on high risk prescription medicines as required.
  • Medication reviews were not always completed or fully noted/recorded.
  • The practice had no system in place to monitor MHRA alerts.
  • No clinical or administrative staff had any training for COVID-19 related infection control, PPE use, testing, knowledge or protocols.
  • Staff had not been completing weekly asymptomatic COVID-19 testing.
  • Staff did not know how to correctly complete a lateral flow test for COVID-19.
  • There were no premises risk assessments or health and safety checks or audits carried out or completed.
  • There was no system for identifying, monitoring or communicating internally about vulnerable patients or safeguarding concerns.
  • Four clinicians and one receptionist had not completed safeguarding training or completed it to the correct level.
  • Not all emergency medicines were stocked.
  • The Practice Manager did not know where policies, protocols, audits or general management records were.
  • Three whistle-blowers and staff told us that the Practice Manager and/or one of the GP Partners were bullies and regularly shouted at or generally mistreated staff.
  • There were no detailed minutes or records of clinical meetings being held between clinical staff.
  • There was no agreed business plan for the future of this practice.
  • There were no recorded meetings or minutes for the PPG.
  • There were no records or audits of staff surveys.
  • There were no audits or records of patient survey analysis or feedback.
  • There were no audits of complaints and some complaints had not been recorded as having had a response.
  • There were no appraisals for any receptionists or administrative staff.
  • There were no competency checks completed for any staff.
  • Three receptionists and three whistle-blowers told us that there were not enough staff to cope with the administration of the practice.
  • Many clinical and non-clinical staff had failed to complete mandatory training.

We found breaches of regulations. The provider was told to:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Ensure that patients' assessments, care and treatment are provided effectively.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The provider was advised to:

  • Complete audits of complaints and use this information to drive improvements.
  • Complete audits and monitoring of patient feedback and use this information to drive improvements.

On 22 September 2021, The Village Surgery was issued with an urgent notice of conditions on their registration as a service provider in respect of regulated activities, under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This notice of
urgent suspension of the provider’s registration was given because we believed that a person would or could be exposed to the risk of harm if we did not take this action. The provider had the right to make an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. The practice remained open with conditions that enable close monitoring of its progress and improvements.

How we carried out this inspection
Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently. This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements. This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Inadequate overall

We found that:

  • The practice was still not monitoring all patients on high risk prescription medicines as required.
  • There were hundreds of overdue medication reviews.
  • There were hundreds of overdue monitoring actions for patients with long-term conditions such as diabetes and hypertension.
  • The practice had actioned MHRA alerts but still did not have a system to ensure their clinical records evidenced this.
  • Some clinical and administrative staff had completed training for COVID-19 related infection control, PPE use, testing, knowledge or protocols.
  • Records of weekly asymptomatic COVID-19 staff testing were unorganised and had gaps.
  • There were limited premises risk assessments which had not addressed concerns we identified.
  • Staff did not know how to support non-English speakers to communicate with the service.
  • All clinical treatment rooms were stocked with expired clinical equipment or items.
  • All clinical treatment rooms had clinical waste management issues such as overflowing bins or undated disposal containers.
  • There was still no system for identifying, monitoring or communicating internally about vulnerable patients or safeguarding concerns.
  • Two clinicians and one non-clinical staff member had not completed safeguarding training or completed it to the correct level.
  • Not all emergency medicines were stocked.
  • The Practice Manager did not know where policies, protocols, audits or general management records were.
  • Staff told us that the management team were divided and difficult to communicate with.
  • There were records of clinical meetings being held between clinical staff.
  • There was no agreed business plan for the future of this practice.
  • There were recorded meetings or minutes for the PPG.
  • There were records and audits of staff surveys.
  • There were no audits or records of patient survey analysis or feedback.
  • There were no audits of complaints and some complaints had not been recorded as having had a response.
  • Some significant incidents were unresolved and there was no audit or evidence of learning and follow up actions.
  • There were appraisals or 1:1s for some staff but we found five staff who had not had received them.
  • There were no competency checks completed for any staff although some staff had had 1:1s.
  • Clinical and non-clinical staff had failed to complete mandatory training.

We found breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Ensure that patients' assessments, care and treatment are provided effectively.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The provider should:

  • Ensure that all patients that do not speak English are supported to access the service;
  • Ensure that reception staff demonstrate a caring and supportive attitude to patients.

This service was placed in special measures in September 2021. Insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for The Village Surgery. Therefore we are taking action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.


Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

8 and 9 September 2021

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection at The Village Surgery on 8 and 9 September 2021. Clinical records reviews were carried out remotely during the same two days. Overall, the practice is rated as Inadequate.

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive responsive inspection in reaction to concerns that had been raised with CQC.

How we carried out this inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Completing clinical searches remotely;
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Inadequate overall.

We found:

  • The practice was not monitoring all patients on high risk prescription medicines as required.
  • Medication reviews were not always completed or fully noted/recorded.
  • The practice had no system in place to monitor MHRA alerts.
  • No clinical or administrative staff had any training for COVID-19 related infection control, PPE use, testing, knowledge or protocols.
  • Staff had not been completing weekly asymptomatic COVID-19 testing.
  • Staff did not know how to correctly complete a lateral flow test for COVID-19.
  • There were no premises risk assessments or health and safety checks or audits carried out or completed.
  • There was no system for identifying, monitoring or communicating internally about vulnerable patients or safeguarding concerns.
  • Four clinicians and one receptionist had not completed safeguarding training or completed it to the correct level.
  • Not all emergency medicines were stocked.
  • The Practice Manager did not know where policies, protocols, audits or general management records were.
  • Three whistle-blowers and staff told us that the Practice Manager and/or one of the GP Partners were bullies and regularly shouted at or generally mistreated staff.
  • There were no detailed minutes or records of clinical meetings being held between clinical staff.
  • There was no agreed business plan for the future of this practice.
  • There were no recorded meetings or minutes for the PPG.
  • There were no records or audits of staff surveys.
  • There were no audits or records of patient survey analysis or feedback.
  • There were no audits of complaints and some complaints had not been recorded as having had a response.
  • There were no appraisals for any receptionists or administrative staff.
  • There were no competency checks completed for any staff.
  • Three receptionists and three whistle-blowers told us that there were not enough staff to cope with the administration of the practice.
  • Many clinical and non-clinical staff had failed to complete mandatory training.

However, we also found that:

  • There was positive feedback from patients about the care and kindness of the practice nurse.
  • Prescriptions were well managed internally by staff.
  • The reception area was clean and modern.

We found breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Ensure that patients' assessments, care and treatment are provided effectively.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The provider should:

  • Complete audits of complaints and use this information to drive improvements.
  • Complete audits and monitoring of patient feedback and use this information to drive improvements.

On 22 September 2021, The Village Surgery was issued with an urgent notice of conditions on their registration as a service provider in respect of regulated activities, under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This notice of urgent conditions of the provider’s registration was given because we believed that a person will or may be exposed to the risk of harm if we did not take this action. The provider had the right to make an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. The practice remains open with conditions that enable close monitoring of its progress and improvements.

I am also placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

13 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Village Surgery 25 October 2016. The practice was rated as good overall. A breach of legal requirements was found relating to the Well Led domain. After the comprehensive inspection, the practice submitted an action plan, outlining what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches of regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

During the comprehensive inspection we found that the practice had failed to ensure that an effective process was in place to distribute safety and medicines alerts to all staff, they had failed to analyse the results of the national GP patient survey and to act on areas where their performance was below average, and they had failed to assess and mitigate the risks relating to recruitment. We also identified areas where improvements should be made, which included reviewing their buddy arrangement with neighbouring practices to ensure that associated risks were identified and mitigated, taking action to reduce their exception reporting rate in areas where it was higher than average, taking action to increase the uptake of cervical screening amongst patients, reviewing how they identified patients with caring responsibilities, advertising the availability of language translation services, ensuring that longer appointments were routinely provided to patients who would benefit from them, ensuring that full details of significant events were recorded, and monitoring the receipt and use of prescription printer sheets.

We undertook this focussed desk-based inspection on 13 March 2017 to check that the practice had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Village Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Following the focussed inspection, we found the practice to be good for being well led.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had reviewed the results of the national GP patient survey and had taken action in response to areas of below average achievement. They were in the process of analysing the impact of the measures they had put in place.
  • The practice had processes in place to ensure that all safety and medicines alerts were distributed to relevant staff, and records were kept of the action taken in response to these alerts.
  • Following the initial inspection, the practice had revised its recruitment procedure to include details about the risk assessment they would undertake to determine whether a member of staff required a Disclosure and Barring Service check. We saw evidence that this new process was being followed.
  • The practice had a reciprocal arrangement with a buddy practice, which would provide clinical cover in an emergency. We saw evidence that background checks had been completed on relevant members of staff from the buddy practice.
  • The practice advertised the availability of translation services and chaperones to patients in the waiting area.
  • The practice routinely provided longer appointments for patients who would benefit from them.
  • The practice kept a full record of significant events, and details of the event and learning were shared with staff.
  • The practice had a system in place to monitor the receipt and use of prescription sheets.
  • Following the initial inspection, the practice had increased the number of carers recorded on their system by 25%. They previously had 28 patients recorded as carers and this has increased to 35 patients; however, this was still less than 1% of the patient population.
  • The practice had taken action to encourage patients with long-term conditions to attend for reviews. The practice provided us with a year-to-date summary of their achievement for the Quality Outcomes Framework, which showed improvements in several areas.
  • The practice was in the process of trying to increase the uptake of cervical screening amongst their patients; for example, a significant proportion of their patient population spoke Arabic or Korean as their first language, and the practice had displayed information about cervical screening written in these languages.

There were two areas where the provider should make improvement:

  • They should continue to monitor patient feedback and to make changes to their service to address any areas of low achievement.
  • They should continue to work to ensure that patients with caring responsibilities are identified on the clinical system in order that these patients can be offered support.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

25 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Village Surgery on 25 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events; however, in some cases records of significant events should be more detailed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed with the exception of those relating to staffing.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. A system was in place to distribute updated guidance and safety alerts to staff; however, not all staff were included in this and no record was kept of the action taken following alerts.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on; however, they had not analysed the results of externally collected patient feedback such as the NHS GP Patient Survey and comments on the NHS Choices website.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Take action to analyse the results of the national patient survey to establish the reason for the lower than average scores, and address areas for improvement.
  • Ensure that the system for distributing safety updates includes all staff, and that a record is made of the action taken as a result of these alerts.

In addition, they should address the following areas:

  • Ensure that the newly revised recruitment procedure is implemented, and that the risks associated with the buddy arrangement with neighbouring practices to provide GP cover have been identified and mitigated.
  • Take action to reduce their exception reporting rate in areas where it is higher than the local and national average.
  • Take action to increase the uptake of cervical screening amongst their patients.
  • Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified and recorded on the clinical system to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.
  • Advertise the availability of translation services and chaperones for patients.
  • Ensure that longer appointments are routinely provided to patients who would benefit from them.
  • Ensure that records of significant events record full details of the event and action taken.
  • Monitor the receipt and use of prescription printer sheets.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice